Levin: Let The Whole Damn Thing Collapse

[Cuyo]

It's bass-ackward "thinking" and entirely wrong.

President Obama "taught" Con Law but doesn't grasp the Constitution and doesn't much care for it to the extent he understands it ever so dimly.

Levin IS a genius and not even close to "dumb." That's just Culo talking his typical ignorant smack. If Culo had a functioning brain in his pin head (he doesn't) he would recognize that although Levin comes across as angry a good deal of the time, that's not the same as hateful or as a guy offering "vitriol." He's not. He cares very deeply about he fundamental principles spelled out to a large extent in our Constitution and is trying (against the grain these days) to preach it to the American People who have largely lost sight of those things.

The American people have been lethargic in many political things. That much is true. But sometimes the sleeping giant awakens. That is what happened in the midterms.

You can choose to believe otherwise. But you would be wrong. Those who fail to heed the commands of the electorate as CLEARLY expressed in the Midterm Elections will not -- hereafter -- last long in elected office. The game has changed.

***Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh***

Please explain, in detail, why you believe Obama either/or "Doesn't grasp" or "Doesn't care for" the constitution.

Those are just words - They don't mean anything. Not at all atypical of a Levin fan.

No. You're wrong. President Obama has articulated his misgivings about the Constitution. If you are not aware of his statements, then you need to educate yourself.

Google could be your friend on this educational journey. Good luck. Bon voyage!

Just for you, champ, I'll google it. Let's find out together if anything comes up that doesn't appear to have been written in an underground bunker devoid of sunlight.

 

[Revere]

^^^^^^^

that

It's bass-ackward "thinking" and entirely wrong.

President Obama "taught" Con Law but doesn't grasp the Constitution and doesn't much care for it to the extent he understands it ever so dimly.

Levin IS a genius and not even close to "dumb." That's just Culo talking his typical ignorant smack. If Culo had a functioning brain in his pin head (he doesn't) he would recognize that although Levin comes across as angry a good deal of the time, that's not the same as hateful or as a guy offering "vitriol." He's not. He cares very deeply about he fundamental principles spelled out to a large extent in our Constitution and is trying (against the grain these days) to preach it to the American People who have largely lost sight of those things.

The American people have been lethargic in many political things. That much is true. But sometimes the sleeping giant awakens. That is what happened in the midterms.

You can choose to believe otherwise. But you would be wrong. Those who fail to heed the commands of the electorate as CLEARLY expressed in the Midterm Elections will not -- hereafter -- last long in elected office. The game has changed.

***Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh***

Please explain, in detail, why you believe Obama either/or "Doesn't grasp" or "Doesn't care for" the constitution.

Those are just words - They don't mean anything. Not at all atypical of a Levin fan.

Obama considers the Constitution an obstacle to what he thinks he needs to do to transform the country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck&feature=player_embedded#!

In the 2001 interview, Obama said:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

Does Obama need to transform the country?

 

[Cuyo]

It's bass-ackward "thinking" and entirely wrong.

President Obama "taught" Con Law but doesn't grasp the Constitution and doesn't much care for it to the extent he understands it ever so dimly.

Levin IS a genius and not even close to "dumb." That's just Culo talking his typical ignorant smack. If Culo had a functioning brain in his pin head (he doesn't) he would recognize that although Levin comes across as angry a good deal of the time, that's not the same as hateful or as a guy offering "vitriol." He's not. He cares very deeply about he fundamental principles spelled out to a large extent in our Constitution and is trying (against the grain these days) to preach it to the American People who have largely lost sight of those things.

The American people have been lethargic in many political things. That much is true. But sometimes the sleeping giant awakens. That is what happened in the midterms.

You can choose to believe otherwise. But you would be wrong. Those who fail to heed the commands of the electorate as CLEARLY expressed in the Midterm Elections will not -- hereafter -- last long in elected office. The game has changed.

***Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh***

Please explain, in detail, why you believe Obama either/or "Doesn't grasp" or "Doesn't care for" the constitution.

Those are just words - They don't mean anything. Not at all atypical of a Levin fan.

Obama considers the Constitution an obstacle to what he thinks he needs to do to transform the country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck&feature=player_embedded#!

In the 2001 interview, Obama said:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

Does Obama need to transform the country?

I just got done listening to that in my first hit on my Liability google search...

It truly does not say what you think it does. Read it again. There's nothing there that says what you think it says.

Hence, hit #1 - WND.com - Underground bunker fail.

 

[Cuyo]

Hit #2 - Obamavconstitution.com... HOPEFULLY we can all agree THAT's a big fail... If not there's no sense in continuing discussion

 

[Revere]

The interview was on Chicago Public Radio.

 

[Revere]

Hit #2 - Obamavconstitution.com... HOPEFULLY we can all agree THAT's a big fail... If not there's no sense in continuing discussion

You want to shut down the discussion because you can't defend it.

 

[Liability]

***Siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh***

Please explain, in detail, why you believe Obama either/or "Doesn't grasp" or "Doesn't care for" the constitution.

Those are just words - They don't mean anything. Not at all atypical of a Levin fan.

Obama considers the Constitution an obstacle to what he thinks he needs to do to transform the country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck&feature=player_embedded#!

In the 2001 interview, Obama said:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn't shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

Does Obama need to transform the country?

I just got done listening to that in my first hit on my Liability google search...

It truly does not say what you think it does. Read it again. There's nothing there that says what you think it says.

Hence, hit #1 - WND.com - Underground bunker fail.

The fail once again is all Culo's.

Give in to your desire to offer a blow job to President Obama.

But the President's political lament -- yes it is a lament -- is that it's just really very sad that the Constitution is document of such NEGATIVE rights.

As I correctly noted many times before. It really is a tragic shame that he doesn't fucking get it. I cannot believe we, the People, made such a massive mistake as to have allowed that man to be elected President. Damn. What a major fuck-up that was.

 

[Cuyo]

Hit #2 - Obamavconstitution.com... HOPEFULLY we can all agree THAT's a big fail... If not there's no sense in continuing discussion

You want to shut down the discussion because you can't defend it.

You've alleged he doesn't care for the constitution. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[Revere]

Hit #2 - Obamavconstitution.com... HOPEFULLY we can all agree THAT's a big fail... If not there's no sense in continuing discussion

You want to shut down the discussion because you can't defend it.

You've alleged he doesn't care for the constitution. The burden of proof is on you.

There is no other way to interpret Obama's words:

It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And you think the Constitution should have "positive" rights, too.

 

[Cuyo]

Obama considers the Constitution an obstacle to what he thinks he needs to do to transform the country.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck&feature=player_embedded#!



Does Obama need to transform the country?

I just got done listening to that in my first hit on my Liability google search...

It truly does not say what you think it does. Read it again. There's nothing there that says what you think it says.

Hence, hit #1 - WND.com - Underground bunker fail.

The fail once again is all Culo's.

Give in to your desire to offer a blow job to President Obama.

But the President's political lament -- yes it is a lament -- is that it's just really very sad that the Constitution is document of such NEGATIVE rights.

As I correctly noted many times before. It really is a tragic shame that he doesn't fucking get it. I cannot believe we, the People, made such a massive mistake as to have allowed that man to be elected President. Damn. What a major fuck-up that was.

I just listened to it, and read it several times - What exactly do you think it says? Where does it say he "Doesn't care for" the constitution?

No sir, what you've got is wackaloons trying to do a little wordsmithing... Please highlight where it says he dislikes the constitution even a little. And frankly, if that's the best you've got...


YOU fail.

 

[Revere]

He rejects the Constitution because it does not have positive rights, and it limits what government can do.

So do Obama's shills like you.

 

[Liability]

Hit #2 - Obamavconstitution.com... HOPEFULLY we can all agree THAT's a big fail... If not there's no sense in continuing discussion

You want to shut down the discussion because you can't defend it.

You've alleged he doesn't care for the constitution. The burden of proof is on you.

The "discussion" offered by President Obama (before he became President) suffices as proof.

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

Yessireebob. We "suffer" because the Constitution is a charter of negative rights.

IF we suffer from it, you dipshit, then it must be objectionable. As I correctly noted, the guy really doesn't much care for the Constitution.

 

[Cuyo]

You want to shut down the discussion because you can't defend it.

You've alleged he doesn't care for the constitution. The burden of proof is on you.

There is no other way to interpret Obama's words:

It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And you think the Constitution should have "positive" rights, too.

That shows his analysis... And not necessarily an incorrect one. Again, what part exactly do you take umbrage with? He's stating, correctly, that the Constitution is primarily a limitation on powers, not a mandate on any level of government.

 

[Cuyo]

You want to shut down the discussion because you can't defend it.

You've alleged he doesn't care for the constitution. The burden of proof is on you.

The "discussion" offered by President Obama (before he became President) suffices as proof.

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

Yessireebob. We "suffer" because the Constitution is a charter of negative rights.

IF we suffer from it, you dipshit, then it must be objectionable. As I correctly noted, the guy really doesn't much care for the Constitution.

Weak. But whatever, it's your interpretation to have.

 

[Revere]

You've alleged he doesn't care for the constitution. The burden of proof is on you.

There is no other way to interpret Obama's words:

It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.

And you think the Constitution should have "positive" rights, too.

That shows his analysis... And not necessarily an incorrect one. Again, what part exactly do you take umbrage with? He's stating, correctly, that the Constitution is primarily a limitation on powers, not a mandate on any level of government.

He rejects the Constitution because it does not afford positive rights, which he, and you, believe are rights like any other.

 

[Liability]

You've alleged he doesn't care for the constitution. The burden of proof is on you.

The "discussion" offered by President Obama (before he became President) suffices as proof.

But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

Yessireebob. We "suffer" because the Constitution is a charter of negative rights.

IF we suffer from it, you dipshit, then it must be objectionable. As I correctly noted, the guy really doesn't much care for the Constitution.

Weak. But whatever, it's your interpretation to have.

LOL.

We both know it wasn't at all "weak." But your obvious inability to refute it demonstrates that your position is weak.

 

[Cuyo]

The "discussion" offered by President Obama (before he became President) suffices as proof.




Yessireebob. We "suffer" because the Constitution is a charter of negative rights.

IF we suffer from it, you dipshit, then it must be objectionable. As I correctly noted, the guy really doesn't much care for the Constitution.

Weak. But whatever, it's your interpretation to have.

LOL.

We both know it wasn't at all "weak." But your obvious inability to refute it demonstrates that your position is weak.

So, shall I take that as a "Yes, that's all I've got?" Quite an assertion based on such flimsy evidence.

 

[Revere]

He says he views the Constitution an an obstruction to "positive" rights, in which he is a True Believer.

 

[Liability]

Weak. But whatever, it's your interpretation to have.

LOL.

We both know it wasn't at all "weak." But your obvious inability to refute it demonstrates that your position is weak.

So, shall I take that as a "Yes, that's all I've got?" Quite an assertion based on such flimsy evidence.

So, you still can't just man up and simply admit that you were proved wrong, eh? Quite a pussy poster you are.

 

[Rozman]

They have long wanted the US government to collapse.

They want to starve it till its small enough to drag down the hall and drown in the bath tub.


Then the corporations can run our country full out

Today Harry Reid unveiled a new 2,000 page 1.1 trillion dollar omnibus spending bill filled with tons and tons of pork to fund the government for 9 months....

If this is a true statement are you ok with this? Are you fine with another couple thousand page bill rammed down our throats?

Can you respond with a simple yes or no answer....?